Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
America is losing the free world
Ever since 1945, the US has regarded itself as the leader of the “free world”. But the Obama administration is facing an unexpected and unwelcome development in global politics. Four of the biggest and most strategically important democracies in the developing world – Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey – are increasingly at odds with American foreign policy. Rather than siding with the US on the big international issues, they are just as likely to line up with authoritarian powers such as China and Iran.
The US has been slow to pick up on this development, perhaps because it seems so surprising and unnatural. Most Americans assume that fellow democracies will share their values and opinions on international affairs. During the last presidential election campaign, John McCain, the Republican candidate, called for the formation of a global alliance of democracies to push back against authoritarian powers. Some of President Barack Obama’s senior advisers have also written enthusiastically about an international league of democracies.
But the assumption that the world’s democracies will naturally stick together is proving unfounded. The latest example came during the Copenhagen climate summit. On the last day of the talks, the Americans tried to fix up one-to-one meetings between Mr Obama and the leaders of South Africa, Brazil and India – but failed each time. The Indians even said that their prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had already left for the airport.
So Mr Obama must have felt something of a chump when he arrived for a last-minute meeting with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, only to find him already deep in negotiations with the leaders of none other than Brazil, South Africa and India. Symbolically, the leaders had to squeeze up to make space for the American president around the table.
There was more than symbolism at work. In Copenhagen, Brazil, South Africa and India decided that their status as developing nations was more important than their status as democracies. Like the Chinese, they argued that it is fundamentally unjust to cap the greenhouse gas emissions of poor countries at a lower level than the emissions of the US or the European Union; all the more so since the industrialised west is responsible for the great bulk of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
Revealingly, both Brazilian and Chinese leaders have made the same pointed joke – likening the US to a rich man who, cont...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ef8f012-f969-11de-8085-00144feab49a.html
It's very, very sad that the media and party politics have divided our country.
The elite are running both parties and globalization is the agenda.
The middle/lower class American people are going to pay the price.
Pseudo conservatives standing for false values is pathetic. The values I'm talking about are false when they are nothing more than an act put on by politicians.
This "War On Terror" is BS and a result of the governments nation building. People in foreign nations are sick and tired of America running their affairs, their countries etc....
They get what's going on and Americans sit back and side with one party or the other in an effort to justify not being involved.
Out for awhile. GL to everyone.
In his comments, Dean called for a "long-term global vision" for the transformation of the global economy and mentioned that disgraced Democratic President Bill Clinton had previously spoken at a meeting of the PES-sponsored Global Progressive Forum. The April 2-3 Global Progressive Forum also featured Robert Borosage of the left-wing group that calls itself the Campaign for America's Future.
The Global Progressive Forum is also sponsored by the Socialist International, whose U.S. affiliate, the Democratic Socialists of America, includes long-time backers of Barack Obama.
"Free-market globalization alone cannot achieve social justice," Dean told the PES convention. "What the world needs is a global New Deal."
Gates proposes $2 billion for unstable countries
Defense secretary proposes a major overhaul in U.S. nation-building
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has proposed a major overhaul of the way the Pentagon and State Department do nation-building, seeking to end friction between the bureaucracies by putting them jointly in charge of three huge new funds aimed at stabilizing strife-ridden countries.
The proposal is aimed at addressing problems that have dogged the U.S. effort in Iraq and Afghanistan -- particularly, disputes over whether civilians or the better-funded military should be in charge of stabilization.
But Gates's proposal goes beyond those conflicts to address what the military increasingly sees as the greatest threat to the United States -- failing states such as cont....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34580582/ns/politics-washington_post
Obama Officials, Dems Support Global Socialism
Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said on December 8 that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party has "intensified significantly" over the last several years and involves "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels." He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides."
But at a "Global Progress Conference" in October, President Barack Obama's pollster, Joel Benenson, acknowledged that socialized medicine in the U.S. faces a serious obstacle. He said that while Europeans are receptive to the expansion of government in their lives, in America there is an anti-government culture which prevents people from "expecting the State to solve their problems."
"This explains why Obama will find it difficult to cont....
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-officials-dems-support-global-socialism/
*Peg- why do you support a globalist/imperialist President Obama?
It wasn't JUST Bush that wanted the war. The Dems support it then and now.
The Dems and Repubs (for the vast majority) are all supporting the selling out of America in exchange for a world gov/occupancy run by the elite.
You may consider not throwing stones from a glass house and become part of the solution.
I suppose not. Very odd why the far left condems the right for pursuit of the same agendas.
Alex I know I'm going out on a limb expecting a civil response but here it goes
Why did you hate the Bush globalist agenda but are ok with the Obama agenda seeking the same goal?
Why do you think terrorists hate us?
What is America (now Obama) doing to foreign nations that creates an environment that is enabling crazy terrorists to gain such a loyal following?
Are you ok with supporting the Democrat Party in it's role of imperialism/globalist agenda?
Obama Officials, Dems Support Global Socialism
Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said on December 8 that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party has "intensified significantly" over the last several years and involves "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels." He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides."
But at a "Global Progress Conference" in October, President Barack Obama's pollster, Joel Benenson, acknowledged that socialized medicine in the U.S. faces a serious obstacle. He said that while Europeans are receptive to the expansion of government in their lives, in America there is an anti-government culture which prevents people from "expecting the State to solve their problems."
"This explains why Obama will find it difficult to cont....
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-officials-dems-support-global-socialism/
Obama Officials, Dems Support Global Socialism
Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said on December 8 that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party has "intensified significantly" over the last several years and involves "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels." He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides."
But at a "Global Progress Conference" in October, President Barack Obama's pollster, Joel Benenson, acknowledged that socialized medicine in the U.S. faces a serious obstacle. He said that while Europeans are receptive to the expansion of government in their lives, in America there is an anti-government culture which prevents people from "expecting the State to solve their problems."
"This explains why Obama will find it difficult to cont....
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-officials-dems-support-global-socialism/
*Peg- why do you support a globalist/imperialist President Obama?
Charles Sykes is the author of DUMBING DOWN OUR KIDS. He volunteered for high school and college graduates, a list of things they did not learn in school. In his book, he talks about how the liberal, feel good, politically correct garbage has created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair; get used to it.
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will not make 40 thousand dollar s a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping; they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you screw up, it's not your parents' fault so don't whine about your mistakes. Learn from them. Obama should review this one!
Rule 7: Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning your room, and listening to you tell how idealistic you are. So before you save the rain forest from the blood-sucking parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades, they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off, and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Charles Sykes is the author of DUMBING DOWN OUR KIDS. He volunteered for high school and college graduates, a list of things they did not learn in school. In his book, he talks about how the liberal, feel good, politically correct garbage has created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair; get used to it.
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will not make 40 thousand dollar s a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping; they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you screw up, it's not your parents' fault so don't whine about your mistakes. Learn from them. Obama should pay attention to this one!
Rule 7: Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning your room, and listening to you tell how idealistic you are. So before you save the rain forest from the blood-sucking parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades, they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off, and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is not real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Let's focus on the CONTENT:
Partisan Politics—A Fool’s Game for the Masses
Of course, it’s all a fraud, designed to distract people from the overriding reality of political life, which is that the state and its principal supporters are constantly screwing the rest of us, regardless of which party happens to control the presidency and the Congress. Amid all the partisan sound and fury, hardly anybody notices that political reality boils down to two “parties”: (1) those who, in one way or another, use state power to bully and live at the expense of others; and (2) those unfortunate others.
Seems accurate and THAT IS what matters LMAO
How do you like the Mayo clinic bagging the medicare patients? Considering the results of gov intervention you love so much I bet you are really excited about the screwing the gov is fixing up for health care!
Partisan Politics—A Fool’s Game for the Masses
A fool's game (blog entry - worth reading)
Of course, it’s all a fraud, designed to distract people from the overriding reality of political life, which is that the state and its principal supporters are constantly screwing the rest of us, regardless of which party happens to control the presidency and the Congress. Amid all the partisan sound and fury, hardly anybody notices that political reality boils down to two “parties”: (1) those who, in one way or another, use state power to bully and live at the expense of others; and (2) those unfortunate others.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa244/RadioFlyerphotos/bush-obama-same-masters.jpg&imgrefurl=http://preparednesssubculture.blogspot.com/2009/10/partisan-politics-fools-game-for-masses.html&h=437&w=379&sz=63&tbnid=d3Ghd4fAHVVNkM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bobama%2Bsame%2Bpicture&hl=en&usg=__m-WBMa6n39XB7O-lUE8Ntl3hiFw=&ei=GCM-S4TPKZCcswO7ody9BA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CBUQ9QEwBw
Partisan Politics—A Fool’s Game for the Masses
A fool's game (blog entry - worth reading)
Of course, it’s all a fraud, designed to distract people from the overriding reality of political life, which is that the state and its principal supporters are constantly screwing the rest of us, regardless of which party happens to control the presidency and the Congress. Amid all the partisan sound and fury, hardly anybody notices that political reality boils down to two “parties”: (1) those who, in one way or another, use state power to bully and live at the expense of others; and (2) those unfortunate others.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa244/RadioFlyerphotos/bush-obama-same-masters.jpg&imgrefurl=http://preparednesssubculture.blogspot.com/2009/10/partisan-politics-fools-game-for-masses.html&h=437&w=379&sz=63&tbnid=d3Ghd4fAHVVNkM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bobama%2Bsame%2Bpicture&hl=en&usg=__m-WBMa6n39XB7O-lUE8Ntl3hiFw=&ei=GCM-S4TPKZCcswO7ody9BA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CBUQ9QEwBw
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family cont...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family cont...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
Agreed- in comparison to gold it's been under valued IMO. I loaded the boat sometime back and am holding on for awhile.
Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank:
Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- To close out 2009, I decided to do something I bet no member of Congress has done -- actually read from cover to cover one of the pieces of sweeping legislation bouncing around Capitol Hill.
Hunkering down by the fire, I snuggled up with H.R. 4173, the financial-reform legislation passed earlier this month by the House of Representatives. The Senate has yet to pass its own reform plan. The baby of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House bill is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.
I quickly discovered why members of Congress rarely read legislation like this. At 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real slog. And yes, I plowed through all those pages. (Memo to Chairman Frank: “ystem” at line 14, page 258 is missing the first “s”.)
The reading was especially painful since this reform sausage is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt.
If you’re a banker, the bill is tastier. While banks opposed cont...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ
Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank:
Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- To close out 2009, I decided to do something I bet no member of Congress has done -- actually read from cover to cover one of the pieces of sweeping legislation bouncing around Capitol Hill.
Hunkering down by the fire, I snuggled up with H.R. 4173, the financial-reform legislation passed earlier this month by the House of Representatives. The Senate has yet to pass its own reform plan. The baby of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House bill is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.
I quickly discovered why members of Congress rarely read legislation like this. At 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real slog. And yes, I plowed through all those pages. (Memo to Chairman Frank: “ystem” at line 14, page 258 is missing the first “s”.)
The reading was especially painful since this reform sausage is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt.
If you’re a banker, the bill is tastier. While banks opposed cont...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ
Just worried about ya. Anti-Obama posting from you seems soooooo out of character
Have to get back to work- in the middle of moving.
Keep an eye on the gov's position on "frac'ing". If the gov makes it so that "frac'ing" is not possible, coal bed methane gas will not be as viable as previous.
Exxon is buying on XTO with a string attached that they will only do so as long as the gov does not ban "frac'ing".
Steph- are you feeling ok??!! I've been away for a few days and haven't been keeping up.
The post I replied to is very much out of character for you!
I don't carry a gun to kill people, I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people, I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid, I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil, I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government, I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry, I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone, I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy, I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man, I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate, I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it, I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin!
..author unknown (but obviously brilliant),,,
Out for the next couple days. Happy Holidays to everyone and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Out for the next couple days. Happy Holidays to everyone and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Though some environmentalists love their dogs more than they love their Sierra Club reusable water bottles, a single dog can have a bigger ecological footprint than an SUV. And cats aren’t much better. According to research highlighted by the New Scientist, it takes an estimated 1.1 hectares of land per year to create the chicken, beef, and lamb that a medium-sized dog eat for its food. A Toyota Land Cruiser SUV, driven 10,000 kilometres a year, would use .41 hectares of land, less than half that of the dog.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance," Dr. John Barrett of the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, UK told the New Scientist, "mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat."
Cats and dogs also wreak havoc on the local wildlife. The estimated 7.7 million cats in the United Kingdom kill more than 188 million wild animals every year. And cat excrement, which can contain the disease Toxoplasma gondii, has been blamed for killing
cont...
http://www.utne.com/Environment/Pets-Global-Warming-Machine-Dogs-Cats-5680.aspx
You should be cautious about spreading propoganda that is supported by pseudo science.
*Yes we should clean up our environment. That doesn't equate to buying into a bs carbon credit scam designed to make a few very, very wealthy on the backs of the middle/lower class.
Edit: Freudian slip and Reid briefly does what he knows is best
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly voted no before changing his vote to yes,
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/BREAKING__Senate_passes_health_bill_.html
A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ('dynamically repressed') wish, conflict, or train of thought.
Edit: Freudian slip and Reid briefly does what he knows is best
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly voted no before changing his vote to yes,
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/BREAKING__Senate_passes_health_bill_.html
A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ('dynamically repressed') wish, conflict, or train of thought.
Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.
The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.
Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.
“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”
The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.
“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said.
Reid Aide’s Response
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the CBO letter doesn’t reflect on the overall health-care bill, which the Senate is set to approve tomorrow.
“Today’s letter deals explicitly with Medicare, not the overall short and long-term budgetary impact of the legislation,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in an e-mail.
Manley said the CBO still projects that the bill will reduce the deficit the first 10 years by $132 billion and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion
cont.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ackCRQU57HhY&pos=9
Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.
The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.
Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.
“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”
The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.
“The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said.
Reid Aide’s Response
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the CBO letter doesn’t reflect on the overall health-care bill, which the Senate is set to approve tomorrow.
“Today’s letter deals explicitly with Medicare, not the overall short and long-term budgetary impact of the legislation,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in an e-mail.
Manley said the CBO still projects that the bill will reduce the deficit the first 10 years by $132 billion and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion
cont.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ackCRQU57HhY&pos=9
The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith's decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation's majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent -- that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party's ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama's victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.
The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.
And, of course, witness the loss of Rep. Griffith and his fellow moderate Democrats who will retire. They are perhaps the truest canaries in the coal mine.
Despite this raft of bad news, Democrats are not doomed to return to the wilderness. The question is whether the party is prepared to listen carefully to what the American public is saying. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology, nor are they falling back in love with the Republican brand. If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.
All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.
For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals -- and, indeed, all of us -- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.
The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.
The writer was secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and chairman of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html
The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith's decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation's majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent -- that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party's ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama's victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.
The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.
And, of course, witness the loss of Rep. Griffith and his fellow moderate Democrats who will retire. They are perhaps the truest canaries in the coal mine.
Despite this raft of bad news, Democrats are not doomed to return to the wilderness. The question is whether the party is prepared to listen carefully to what the American public is saying. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology, nor are they falling back in love with the Republican brand. If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.
All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.
For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals -- and, indeed, all of us -- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.
The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.
The writer was secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and chairman of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html
For Their Next Trick . . .
The latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already warned that if the final bill "isn't close to the Senate bill, there will be no way to get the 60 votes here" to shut off debate and pass the final product. But many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major changes in the Senate's version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional
cont...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614183270356274.html
For Their Next Trick . . .
The latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already warned that if the final bill "isn't close to the Senate bill, there will be no way to get the 60 votes here" to shut off debate and pass the final product. But many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major changes in the Senate's version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional
cont...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614183270356274.html
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Context: International Criminal Court
The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).
29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)
President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.
President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.
President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.
However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.
Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.
President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.
When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.
For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.
This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.
Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families
The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates it would slap a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) and are not provided with health insurance by their employer.
On Dec. 19, the CBO sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) analyzing the fiscal impact of the bill the Senate is poised to vote on before Christmas.
The CBO analysis cites five basic facts about the bill that acting together would deal a devastating financial blow to many middle class families if the bill is enacted and enforced as written.
Here are these facts:
Fact 1: You will be forced to buy health insurance.
Page 1 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says: “Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance”
Fact 2: You will be eligible for a federal subsidy to help you buy health insurance, but only if you earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four), your employer does not offer you coverage, and you purchase a government-approved plan in a government-regulated insurance exchange.
Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says “The bill also would establish new insurance exchanges and would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. … As a rule, full-time workers who were offered coverage from their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges.”
Fact 3: Your employer will not be required to offer you coverage, and will face a maximum fine of $750 per worker per year if it does not.
Page 7 of the CBO letter to Reid says: “In general, firms with more than 50 workers that did not offer coverage would have to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker if any of their workers obtained subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges; that dollar amount would be indexed.”
Fact 4: Your insurance provider will face new federal mandates that will increase its cost for any plan it offers you.
Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says: “Policies purchased through the exchanges (or directly from insurers) would have to meet several requirements: In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees’ health.”
Fact 5: Your family insurance plan – if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own —will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016.
Page 19 of the CBO letter to Reid says the average premiums cont....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58913
Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families
The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates it would slap a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) and are not provided with health insurance by their employer.
On Dec. 19, the CBO sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) analyzing the fiscal impact of the bill the Senate is poised to vote on before Christmas.
The CBO analysis cites five basic facts about the bill that acting together would deal a devastating financial blow to many middle class families if the bill is enacted and enforced as written.
Here are these facts:
Fact 1: You will be forced to buy health insurance.
Page 1 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says: “Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance”
Fact 2: You will be eligible for a federal subsidy to help you buy health insurance, but only if you earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four), your employer does not offer you coverage, and you purchase a government-approved plan in a government-regulated insurance exchange.
Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says “The bill also would establish new insurance exchanges and would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. … As a rule, full-time workers who were offered coverage from their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges.”
Fact 3: Your employer will not be required to offer you coverage, and will face a maximum fine of $750 per worker per year if it does not.
Page 7 of the CBO letter to Reid says: “In general, firms with more than 50 workers that did not offer coverage would have to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker if any of their workers obtained subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges; that dollar amount would be indexed.”
Fact 4: Your insurance provider will face new federal mandates that will increase its cost for any plan it offers you.
Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says: “Policies purchased through the exchanges (or directly from insurers) would have to meet several requirements: In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees’ health.”
Fact 5: Your family insurance plan – if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own —will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016.
Page 19 of the CBO letter to Reid says the average premiums cont....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58913